Gohmert may have only been looking as far as his own state's legislature: both Texas houses as Republican controlled. However, both Texas Senators are already Republican. Maybe Gohmert thinks a Democratic Senator is likely to be elected in the near future in Texas, where Democrats have been gaining support (due to immigration from blue states and Mexico?). With a politician, goals tend most likely to be short term, and least likely to be altruistic.

For those who complain that the 'will of the people' is being thwarted by the undemocratic U.S. Senate, or would be more so thwarted by adding another stage of representation to the selection of U.S. Senators, I would remind you of the Founders' intent that the country not be too easily swayed to mob rule. They wished to balance the desires of the majority against the rights of the individual and minority groups.

Freedom was the goal, including freedom from demagogues promising to serve up the minority for the pleasure of the majority. Power and governance are inherently imperfect, and thus they need to be limited. There is no 'one size fits all' set of rules which can address every ill in society--for one man's vice is another's virtue. Much preferable would be the 'many small laboratories' approach that lies at the heart of many states' rights arguments. If I didn't like how the majority ruled in Georgia, I might like it better in Michigan or Vermont. With ever-more-preemptive rules coming from Washington, D.C. we are casting away the freedom of association and the advantages of limited experimentation with government.

The bill of rights and subsequent amendments provide reasonable limits on the scope of state experimentation, by prohibiting gross violations of individual rights we find universal (like the right to not be enslaved, or womens' suffrage) at any level of government. But some are simply not content to let other states go a different direction that might prove superior. More to the point, they want the entire nation's output to be taxable for their pet projects.

I've gotten a bit afield from the original issue, which is whether elected state officials should choose U.S. Senators, or if we should continue to mandate state-wide direct election. Having a dim view of the average voter's ability to peer through the media fog surrounding popular elections, I prefer to let a more saavy and informed class of people elect at least one federal legislative body. Others with higher esteem for the average TV-watching Joe/Jane will surely not want to deprive them of one iota of representation (even as experience shows us that the choices they often make better serve corporate interests domestic and foreign than the interest of 'the people').

Just abolish the Senate, and give 50%+ of State legislatures (or the legislatures of States representing 50%+ of the population) the right to nullify federal law by passing identically-worded resolutions to such effect. This will protect federalism better and reduce gridlock.

There is a democratic deficit in the United States, which is much more glaring than anything that Mr Gohmert's proposal would fix.

Three areas need attention:

1. Gerrymandering needs to end. There could be some formula worked out that limits the length of the perimeter relative to the area.

2. Filibustering needs to end. Nothing more clearly thwarts the will of the people. Who's in charge, anyway?

3. Undue weight given to small states in the Senate needs to be redressed. The German model does look promising, with perhaps retaining the minimum of two senators per state, but with additional senators for states whose population exceeds a certain size. To avoid rewriting the rules every time the population shifts, it could be done on the basis of quintiles: the 50 states would be grouped by population within 5 bands. The lowest band would have 2 senators, the next highest 3, and so on so that the highest banded states have 6 senators. That would increase the number of senators from 60 to 200, but I can't see that in itself being much of a problem.

However, I don't think that there is any case for the German rule that all senators form one state must vote as a block. The individual conscience of each senator is not something anyone should want to undermine.

Sparkleby’s comments on the “basic deficit of democratic legitimacy of the Senate” reflect a common confusion of two related – but distinct - concepts:

i) democracy; and

ii) the definition of “The People”.

The equal representation of States in the Senate arises from the definition The People, and has nothing to do with it being democratic or non-democratic.

Democracy – according to its long-established meaning, and as understood by the politicians who drafted the United States Constitution – is a system of government in which The People may initiate and vote directly upon their laws, with equal weighting for each voter.

It may be readily observed that the United States (in the federal jurisdiction) is not - and has never been - democratic in this sense. Rather, it has a system of purely “representative” government in which legislative and executive power is monopolised by politicians. Having Senators elected by United States voters as a whole would not change this.

Equality of representation by State touches on a completely different issue: the definition of “The People”.

If one regards the United States as a single polity encompassing a single “People”, then a democratic United States (under the classical meaning of the term) would require that members of the United States be able to initiate and vote directly upon the laws, with equal weighting for each voter irrespective of State.

However, if one regards the United States as comprising several “Peoples”, then equality of any kind at the federal level does not follow. It is possible for a number of democratic polities to negotiate amongst themselves for the delegation of certain powers to a central government on whatever terms they may agree upon. The negotiated arrangement may include equality of voting and/or equality of representation in the central jurisdiction. But it need not. Indeed, it need not include any elected offices at all in the central jurisdiction.

As a matter of historical record, the United States Constitution was negotiated in just such a way . . .

. . . but it was negotiated by politicians from States that were non-democratic to begin with. From their public pronouncements on the matter, we know that these politicians were resolutely determined that the new constitution contain no democratic elements whatever.

To the extent that the Peoples of the various States were given any direct say in the matter, it was a binary choice between joining a non-democratic federation, or not joining and remaining separate, but still under a non-democratic government.

Thus, the United States and its Senate are non-democratic in the classical sense . . . but not for the reasons stated by Sparkleby.

Moreover, Sparkleby’s valid observation that “Many people vote for their state rep with no clear idea who they are or what they stand for” drives a stake through the very heart of (so-called) “representative” government . . . . at both the State and federal level.

So-called “representative” government cannot possibly reflect the preferences of the People in any meaningful way. To take the simplest example, assume that:

- Candidate X supports Policy A and Policy B;

- Candidate Y supports Policy Not-A and Policy Not-B; and

- a voter prefers Policy A and Policy Not-B.

How is the voter supposed to vote?

In practice, the number of options is vast, and a vote for a single candidate cannot be taken to imply a preference for any policy at all.

All of which goes back to the question I asked at the end of my original comment:

What would the People (or Peoples) want . . . if ever the politicians deigned to ask them directly?

DP, you're right that if one did like federalism in the abstract, one might like this proposal. I just can't envision many people actually being happy with the results. The first time the Senate passes a bill people don't like, they're going to start wondering why they have to listen to someone who nobody voted for except a bunch of legislators in some other state. State legislators, of course, might be happy with that situation.

I'm pretty sure if Roe v. Wade is struck down, it'll be to reverse the idea of a constitutional privacy right that prevents states from legislating as to whether abortion is murder or not. I don't think that would drive liberals to have to argue for federalism; they'd simply be arguing in state legislatures that abortion isn't murder. An attempt by Congress to outlaw abortion could force liberals to take up federalism, but I don't see that happening.

"3) No matter which state I resided in, I'd have a little more faith in the state legislature than in the media-hypnotized general electorate to make a sound choice. Even more so if the confirmation process was by secret ballot."

Which state do you live in, then? I can't imagine anyone in the five states with Pacific coastlines sharing that faith, but maybe things are different in the rest of the country?

TV, your argument works as an argument for devolving authority from the federal legislature down to the state level. (I mostly disagree with that idea for other reasons.) But it doesn't work as an argument for having senators appointed by state legislatures. Your vote for that senator doesn't become more significant when, instead of being counted directly along with 3 million others, it's instead counted towards an election for a state representative along with 15,000 others and an election for a state senator along with 30,000 others, and then those two vote in bodies of 200 and 100 to choose the senator. It's just made extra-irrelevant through a step of intermediation.

You would wind up with a Senate full of people who had never won a direct election for their office, and would then be pontificating to the country about what should happen to its health-care system. The response would very quickly become, "Oh yeah? And who elected you?"

Sparkleby, I don't see a lot of comments above endorsing the idea. The trend seems more that the partisan result doesn't make it stupid. And while your argument against it here in the comments make a lot of sense, they don't make the proposal stupid either. I'm not sure I would vote for the amendment if it came to a referendum wherever I happen to be living at the time, but I think it is a good proposal in that, assuming federalism is worth preserving, a sensible case can be made that making Senators creatures of state government might help accomplish that.

If I thought that a federal structure were crucial, which I don't particularly, I would like this proposal a lot. I do think some clarity as to how federal we are going to be for the next little while would be helpful but I'm not optimistic. If Roe v. Wade is overturned I expect a heck of a lot of Democratic party federalists to suddenly appear as they did when the Republicans wanted to nationalize Terri Schiavo's still breathing corpse. Now that the health insurance bill passed, I'm not surprised that Republicans, have found their federalist hearts churning madly.

Let’s not paint all state legislatures with such a broad brush. There seems to be a tendency to assume that the malignancies of, say, New York, California, and Illinois are typical of the whole. Last week, R.L.G. posted a piece wondering why anyone would aspire to being a Congressman. That goes double for being a state legislator. In Washington State, the pay is ridiculously low and the pace of work frantic. I spent several days last month talking to state legislators in Olympia. While some are a joke, some are more interested in gaining power than knowing what to do with it, and too many engage in tedious partisan posturing, most of these guys and gals take their jobs seriously. And believe it or not, they are generally smarter, or at least better informed, than the majority of their constituents. Now would I want them picking my Senators? Hell no. The Washington legislature is not particularly corrupt, because few of its decisions have national consequences. Picking Senators, however, is another ballgame. Just read a history of the Standard Oil Corporation.

M.S. Cityless sparkleby,
"And these objections are piled on top of what I still consider the basic deficit of democratic legitimacy of the Senate due to the extreme population disparities between the states."

"In fact, let me add to that: one of the reasons why voting rates are low in America is that there are few elections in which people can vote with any prospect that their vote will make a difference."

The democratic legitimacy arguments support State and Local Government power. You simply cannot create an electoral system in a nation of over 300 million people in which an individual's vote matters.

More specifically, the current US population is estimated at 309 million, 435 Representatives, and there are therefore 710,000 people for every representative. Individual voters cannot have any power at the national level (and if there were an election decided by a single vote, that doesn't seem like a good thing).

Yes, State Legislatures may be more corrupt because people pay less attention to them, but, if anything, wouldn't that mean that by giving them the (possibility) of exercising the power to appoint Senators, they might end up being less corrupt after people start to pay more attention?

But really my point is that if what you're after is democratic legitimacy, then local elections and local power are the way to go.

Pacer,
I couldn't disagree more. The elections process forces Senators to "moderate" their positions in order to appeal to centerist, independent voters. The Senate is always in gridlock because it is centerist and doesn't like to pass legislation in agreement with the House. It's a very conservative body, in the dictionary definition of the word. Being centerist doesn't mean everyone will get along.

State senators are much more petty and partisan, hard to believe, yes, than national Senators. I believe they have more centerist positions to start out, but they are even less capable of compromise. What use is that?

In fact, let me add to that: one of the reasons why voting rates are low in America is that there are few elections in which people can vote with any prospect that their vote will make a difference. Most congressional districts are either solidly Democratic or solidly Republican. That's true of most states as well. If you live in New York or Mississippi, apart from a couple of congressional districts, the only meaningful elections are party primaries. What we need is at least one election in which people vote directly for representation at the national level. We don't have a single one. (Presidential election voting is rendered meaningless for many by the electoral college.)

State legislatures are for the moment somewhat less dominated by partisan politics than the national scene. If they were responsible for appointing senators that would probably change. State politics are already becoming more sharply partisan because the national parties have recognised they can use them to redraw electoral districts. Making them responsible for appointing senators would exacerbate that.

To be clear, I think that the deeper logic of returning power to "the states" (by which we mean state legislatures) is even more deeply flawed. State legislatures tend to be more corrupt than national ones, because legislators are subject to less scrutiny. Elections at the state level tend to have lower voting rates. Many people vote for their state rep with no clear idea who they are or what they stand for, and the issues people are voting on in state elections have nothing to do with the issues considered by the Senate. You vote for your state rep and senator based on questions like property taxes, school funding, bond issues for local infrastructure projects. Then you expect these guys to vote to pick your Senator, who will be dealing with ratification of international treaties and so forth? This makes no sense whatsoever to me. And these objections are piled on top of what I still consider the basic deficit of democratic legitimacy of the Senate due to the extreme population disparities between the states. As others have noted, there were reasons why the country moved to direct elections of senators in 1913. In my view, if we want to reform the Senate, it would make more sense to decouple it entirely from state representation, which is a pointless anachronism. States already have governors and legislatures of their own; they've got plenty of room to assert their own authority and special characteristics in governance. What America lacks is any legislative body that functions via national proportional representation. If we need a second legislative chamber, I'd elect it that way, in contrast to the House, which represents districts. And I'd have no chamber at all where the delegates represent constituencies of wildly varying sizes; I see no logic whatsoever to that besides the historical accident of the penstrokes of King James of England.

I just picked up on this topic because I noticed the people who had already commented on it elsewhere seemed to have the partisan math wrong. Obviously if such a change were implemented, it would be a while before it resulted in appointed senators, and the picture would be different. But it's worth noting that state legislatures have traditionally trended more Democratic than the national picture.